References
[1]. Beitel, D. A., Gibbs Jr, R. W., & Sanders, P. (2001). The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial preposition on. In Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics (p. 241). John Benjamins.
[2]. Cuyckens, H., & Zawada, B. E. (Eds.). (2001). Polysemy in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997 (Vol. 177). John Benjamins Publishing.
[3]. Gozdz-Roszkowski, S. (2013). Exploring nearsynonymous terms in legal language. A corpus-based, phraseological perspective. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies, 12.
[4]. Ismail, N., & Yusof, M. A. M. (2008, November). Exploring the use of learning contracts for language learning. In Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Pasca Ijazah, 52-64.
[5]. Johnson, R. K. (1985). Prototype theory, cognitive linguistics and pedagogical grammar. Working Papers in Linguistics and Language Training, 8, 12-24.
[6]. KiziĆska, A. (2010). Polysemy in contracts establishing an employment relationship under the Law of England and Wales: A Case Study. Institute of Linguistics Faculty of Modern Languages, Adam Mickiewicz University
[7]. Kovacs, E. (2011). Polysemy in traditional vs. cognitive linguistics. Eger Journal of English Studies (Vol. 11.), 3-19.
[8]. Krapivkina, O. A. (2017). Semantics of the verb shall in legal discourse. Jezikoslovlje, 18(2), 305-317.
[9]. Lakoff, G. (2008). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
[10]. Manasia, M. G. (2016). Polysemy and Metaphor in the Verbs of Perception. In The Future of Knowledge (pp. 55- 64). Scientia Moralitas Research Institute.
[11]. Mitsugi, M. (2017). Schema-Based Instruction on Learning English Polysemous Words: Effects of Instruction and Learners' Perceptions. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 21-43.
[12]. Pesina, S., & Latushkina, O. (2015). Polysemy and cognition. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192(24), 486-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.0 6.075
[13]. Post, D. (2006), Writing guidelines: General principles and rules. Retrieved from http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~pszg a/tips/writing_guidelines.pdf
[14]. Qiang, Z. (2014). The reflection of markedness in prototype category theory on semantic level and its implications for second language acquisition. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(2), 95- 101.
[15]. Richard, I. (2018). Is legal lexis a characteristic of legal language?. Journal in English Lexicology, (11). https://doi. org/10.4000/lexis.1173
[16]. Soboleva, A. (2015) Legal terminology from the rhetorical perspective: Legal genres approach. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki (in Russian), 3, 168-180. Retrieved from https://law-journal.hse.ru/en/2015--3/16256 4003.html
[17]. Taylor, J. R. (2003). Cognitive models of polysemy. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, 142, 31-48.
[18]. Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An Introduction to the science of meaning Oxford: Blackwell. Retrieved from https://www.worldcat.org/title/semantics-an-introductionto- the-science-of-meaning/oclc/307433
[19]. Ya'acob, A., Othman, Z., Kamarulzaman, S. Z. S., & Mokhtar, N. H. (2012). English language teaching and learning: To contract or not to contract. The Social Sciences, 7(5), 731-737.
[20]. Zhang, H. (2017). A study on implication of prototype theory in English vocabulary teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 133-137. https:// doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0801.16